OT another gift from "Yes, Prime Minister"

Sir Humphrey explaining compulsory education to PM Hacker: words to the effect “the age for compulsory education was put up to 16, to keep the kids out of the job market, to reduce unemployment”.

That gives me an idea, as now, Shiny-land has the opposite problem: not enough marginally literate, unskilled, people to fill all the lousy jobs.

First, Congress repeals the child labor laws as “freeedom”.

Second, “pro-growth” states reduce the mandatory school age to 14, or graduation from 8th grade, whichever comes first.

Third, “pro-growth” states give students, and their parents, a lecture on “personal responsibility” and impose a tuition charge on public high schools of, say, $5,000/year, unless they play football, because rationing by ability to pay is a “traditional family value”.

Everyone pats themselves on the back as tens of thousands of students, lacking the ability to pay for high school, flood into the job market, to the great delight of restaurant “JCs” everywhere.



Arby’s would be proud!

So now I have to get rid of my robots because the kids will be cheaper?



Yup. That is why the “JCs” want cheap, cheap, humans, not bots. They have to pay to buy flipperbots. Humans show up at the door with basic language and manual skills already installed, free. If business declines, you still have to service the debt incurred to buy the flipperbots, but you can toss humans out on the street without a thought, as the CAPEX invested is zero.



Another win for the “JCs”.

A few years ago, “We The People” collected enough signatures on petitions to put a proposal on the ballot to raise the minimum wage. The (L&Ses) short-circuited the system by adopting the petition provisions, before “We The People” voted on it, then amended the new law to sharply reduce the wage rates from what the proposal that petition signers had approved, offered.

A court has held that what the (L&Ses) did was not unconstitutional.

The “JCs” don’t want flipperbots, they want really, really, cheap, expendable, people.


CT is actually serious about doing things for the lower middle class workers. Most of the Northeastern and west coast states actually do these things. We have richer states. You have to have consumers and savers. You can not just have selfish middle managers.

Bills are passing through the Michigan legislature (the first one elected without gerrymandered districts in 40 years) to increase the EITC and increase the tax deduction for pension income. The EITC was reduced, and pensions taxed, by the old gang of (L&Ses), in 2011, to help pay for two rounds of tax cuts for the “JCs”.


1 Like

We have a program here that needs to be extended next year and it will be, we give $250 per child per month to mothers. The income cap I think is on the higher side.

The idea is poor mothers who can feed their child a bit better the child might get a better start in life and a better education. This may reduce the prison population twenty years from now. That could well pay for this program a few times over.

Women waiting to their late thirties to have a child need a bit of money even as a couple making good money. The problem for these couples is giving up some of their income to have a child. This money is measured to tip the balance in the decision. These women are educated and CT needs educated workers in the future.

The program is not in the least racist. Meaning African American women just prior to the pandemic had the highest college enrollment rate in the country of any major demographic.(Jews and Unitarians have higher rates but are small groups) This money helps them create educated children. This is a leadership group that greatly matters.

For working families this money helps make ends meet to raise a child. Again giving children a better shot at getting educated.


Higher than Asians? This data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2018) shows the Black college enrollment rate at 37% and Asian at 59%, a huge difference. It also shows white women at 45% and black women at 41%.



Asians, Jews and Unitarians have much higher rates at times. Particularly Jews and Unitarians. But these are smaller demographic groups.

The African American enrollment rate is okay. The African American men are less likely to enroll. I qualified my statement as Black American Women. Also the pre pandemic numbers are harder to find this morning. I am trying to get into some other business. But the pre pandemic percentage of “college age” black women was 51%.

These are some more recent numbers.

1 Like

Do you have a link for that data?
At any rate, not so according to the Feds (the NCES linked earlier).

For 2018:
White women: 45%
Black women: 41%



There is a qualification “of college age”. That does not include people going back to school. That does not include a large group of people who might to back to school.

It does not state how many graduate with a degree.

Your 2018 numbers what are the qualifications?

The NCES says “18- to 24-year-old” females.
Do you think the numbers would be significantly different for older women?



It is not 41% of Black females. It is much higher. The average for African Americans is 36%, but there is closer to twice as many females 62% to males $38% participating in college. 62/38 x 36% equals 58% female enrollment. This mathematically would assume 50% men and 50% women in the cohort which we know is not exact.

Indicator 19. College Participation Rates

In 2016, the total college enrollment rate was higher for Asian young adults (58 percent) than for young adults who were of Two or more races (42 percent), White (42 percent), Hispanic (39 percent), Black (36 percent), Pacific Islander (21 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (19 percent). From 2000 to 2016, total college enrollment rates
increased for White (from 39 to 42 percent), Black (from 31 to 36 percent), and Hispanic young adults (from 22 to 39 percent) but were not measurably different for the other racial/ethnic groups during this time period.

Indicator 20. Undergraduate Enrollment

Between 2000 and 2016, Hispanic undergraduate enrollment more than doubled (a 134 percent increase from 1.4 million to 3.2 million students). The enrollment for most other racial/ethnic groups increased during the first part of this period, then began to decrease around 2010. In 2016, a greater percentage of undergraduates were female than male across all racial/ethnic groups. The gap between female and male enrollment was widest for Black students (62 vs. 38 percent) and narrowest for Asian students (53 vs. 47 percent).

That’s certainly not what the NCES says. They have already broken it down for us by race and sex.


1 Like

I quoted the NCES and did the math.

Will you find your quote in the NCES materials?

Sure. In the NCES report you linked, on page 119 look at Figure 19.3 titled “Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college, by sex and race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2016”. For 2017 we see white females at 44% and black females at 39%.

My NCES document link covers through 2018. Figure 3 is titled “College enrollment rates of 18- to 24-year olds, by sex and race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2018”. For 2018 we see white females at 45% and black females at 41%.

“Among females, college enrollment rates were also higher in 2018 than in 2000 for those who were White (45 vs. 41 percent) and Hispanic (40 vs. 25 percent). The rate in 2018 was not measurably different from the rate in 2000 for females who were Black.”



It depends on how we state it. Black females are far more likely to be enrolled in college than black males. Meaning of that demographic compared to say Asian or white demographics black females have a higher percentage of their demographic.

Obviously I am not saying 51% of all enrollees are black females.

Each demographic has its own 100% to break up. The rate of black females to black males who were of college age and were enrolled actually got more lopsided into 2018.

After calculating female v male enrollment for each demographic black women have the highest enrollment rate of any demographic.

Asians may have an enrollment rate that is higher but male v female the women are not really enrolling that much more than the males.